We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

313,000 jobs is a measure of economic robustness? Is this figure weighted to account for Boomer retirements?
For decades, economists predicted that, on average, 10,000 Boomers would be retiring per day; that's roughly 300,000 per month. I've been asking this since 2010, when pundits were trying to give BHO credit for improvements in unemployment stats.
Don't get me wrong; I prefer this outcome. But, do not be deceived, all jobs are not created equal? The question is, what kind of jobs?

Alas, that was our very own Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna, also known by her nickname Climate Barbie.

Here's the full line she uttered:

"We need to consider the gendered impacts of climate change on women, girls and children. I am proud that Canada is training up women negotiators so that we have more female voices around the table..."

You know, I cannot think of a previous Canadian government of any stripe that prattled away like Grade Nine students at a public speaking contest.

I'm afraid the current federal government in Ottawa is a children's crusade.

Oh, I don't know. Just keeping the Taliban and their ilk out of power and on their toes strikes me as a worthy objective in itself.

Millions of girls who would otherwise be denied an education are going to school simply because the grim Islamists are not running the show (the sort of real progress for women that our miserable "progressives" and "feminists" ignore).

The problem is that there is a secret here. Most blacks at some level agree with Farrakhan. As a black politician you can secure your base by kissing up to Farrakhan. Of course this isn't really secret but if you only listened to the MSM and talking heads you would never know the truth of it. Sad to say but blacks in America believe that same things that Farrakhan does.

Is this figure weighted to account for Boomer retirements?
****************
That's hard to say but if one looks at the BLS numbers there is substantial employment growth in the 55 and over demographic.

The "left" is a disparate group. Among Democrats, most keep a distance. A number of Democrats (Schakowsky, Meeks, Lee) have condemned Farrakhan's remarks, a number reaffirmed commitments against anti-Semitism (Carson), though a number with a connection to Farrakhan have remained silent.

I'll reserve my panic. First, because it's the CIA pushing the line and secondly because "current trends" are like saying since it was 40 degrees this morning and 48 degrees this afternoon, it's safe to assume by this time next Tuesday it'll be 250 degrees. I suspect China's going to have a hard time keeping up the pace on their spending given the inefficiencies inherent in a command economy. Not to mention the social unrest in a Chinese middle class developing a taste for luxury goods like liberty.

The more I look at China, the more I wonder if the it would be better to view it as a set of rival factions, each with its own motivations more than a cohesive government. It seems to me that much of the aggressive push into the South China Sea area is being pushed by the military more than the diplomatic corps, and even there some of the regional commanders seem to have agendas somewhat independent of the central government.

In the 1970s ('80s?) I saw a short 5 min. movie clip about a supermarket romance. The man and woman kept noticing each other down the isles. I was thinking it was called "Prelude", but that can't be right because I've been unable to find it on imdb.com. The actor was semi-famous with short curly dark hair. He looked Italian. Oh well, I found this modern one anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVdn6qSFPe4

California Has Too Much Green Energy:
Ha! What a great problem.
I have solar panels and solar water heater.
I'm a one-person utility, selling back my surplus.
Soon plan to add a Tesla home battery to store my xs energy. Wont have to sell it back for cheap.

No emissions so your children and children's children can breathe cleaner air.

The Congressional Black Caucus held a meeting with Farrakhan in 2005. Vice chair of the DNC, Keith Ellison, has met privately with him after he disavowed him during his congressional campaign. Other prominent Democrats who have associations with Farrakhan are Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Andre Carson, and Gregory Meeks. One of the heads of the women's march in DC, Tamika Mallory, praised him as the "Greatest Of All Time" and had her picture taken with Farrakhan. More recently, a photo of Obama with Farrakhan surfaced after being suppressed at the request of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Democrats are not shy about calling someone a racist using the most tenuous of rationales. It's just another case of Democrat projection. They're the real racists.

Z: Notably, you mention several Democrats, some of whom have already denounced Farrakhan's remarks.

Yeah but all of them have had recent substantive interactions with him. As I said, the Vice Chair of the DNC distanced himself from Farrakhan for political reasons, not because he fundamentally disagreed with him. I have no reason to think that the others I mentioned that you say denounced him (whom you do not name) are any more honest. After all:https://www.democrats.org/about/our-history. Democrats and the media would and have charged Republicans with racism with a lot less (read no) evidence.

Z: There are two major political parties in the United States. One is nearly all-white, the other is ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse. Guess which one is which.

So. There are two major political parties in the US. One was actually founded to promote the civil rights of blacks and the other just says it is (in case you missed it the first time: https://www.democrats.org/about/our-history). One of them proposed and promoted Constitutional Amendments to grant civil rights to blacks, the other went to war to keep black slavery. One promoted civil rights legislation, the other filibustered every attempt to pass that civil rights legislation. One integrated the public schools and sent in troops to guarantee the right for blacks to got to primarily white public schools, the other enacted Jim Crow and segregation laws and used violence to enforce them (and now claim they supported civil rights then). And one has no members of leadership with any relationship with racists and the other does. Can you guess which is which?

mudbug: Yeah but all of them have had recent substantive interactions with him.

Let's look at the original statement at issue:

QUOTE:

Why does the left not condemn Farrakhan’s anti-semitism?

That statement was false. Not only have some on the political left condemned Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements, but many on the left have no connection to Farrakhan. In other words, it's a gross over-generalization about a highly disparate group.

mudbug: One was actually founded to promote the civil rights of blacks ... One of them proposed and promoted Constitutional Amendments to grant civil rights to blacks, the other went to war to keep black slavery ...

Yeah. Whatever happened to those guys? It seems the vast majority of African Americans abandoned the Republican Party in the 1960s, and never went back. Why do you think that is?

Z: That statement was false. Not only have some on the political left condemned Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements, but many on the left have no connection to Farrakhan. In other words, it's a gross over-generalization about a highly disparate group.

"Some" is the operative word. Some have not. Some who have not are in leadership positions in the Democrat party. There is no demand from the rest of the party that they explain themselves much less to step down. The Congressional Black Caucus is an influential arm of the Democrat party and they held a meeting with Farrakhan. That did not diminish their stature among other Democrats. Of course, a main tactic of the Democrat party is to divide people by race, none of this should be surprising.

Z: Yeah. Whatever happened to those guys? It seems the vast majority of African Americans abandoned the Republican Party in the 1960s, and never went back. Why do you think that is?

They left the Republican party basically for the money. They were attracted to the redisributionist policies of Roosevelt and Democrats going forward. They certainly weren't attracted to the Democrats racial views. After all, John Lewis was a Democrat when he was beat up by other Democrats trying to get equal rights that Republicans eventually gave him.

Sure. In the dramatic aftermath of the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the vast majority of African Americans left the Republican Party to join what you claim to be the racist party. Do you realize how inane that is?

mudbug: After all, John Lewis was a Democrat when he was beat up by other Democrats trying to get equal rights that Republicans eventually gave him.

Z: Sure. In the dramatic aftermath of the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the vast majority of African Americans left the Republican Party to join what you claim to be the racist party. Do you realize how inane that is?

The movement of blacks from the Democrat party started long before the Civil Rights era. Look it up.

Are you saying the Democrat party was not the party of racism when a Democrat president viewed "The Birth of a Nation" in the White House? When the implemented Jim Crow laws? When they implemented racial segregation? When they schemed to deny blacks the vote (that Republicans gave them)? When they basically set up an Apartheid system in the South?

Z: Sure. John Lewis did it for the money. Jeez.

Are you saying John Lewis joined the Democrat party for its racial views?! You have a very low opinion of his intelligence.

African American party affiliation was split between the two parties until after WWII and the start of the modern civil rights movement. Republican affiliation has never reached 20% since 1964.

mudbug: Are you saying the Democrat party was not the party of racism when a Democrat president viewed "The Birth of a Nation" in the White House?

We said quite the opposite. At the time, the Democratic Party was a coalition of labor, liberals, and southern whites. The latter half of the twentieth century saw the secession of southern whites ("Dixiecrats") from the increasingly pro-civil rights Democratic Party, who then moved to the Republican Party, which has become increasingly white.

mudbug: Are you saying John Lewis joined the Democrat party for its racial views?!

There's little doubt about that. In 1964, the Democratic presidential candidate advocated for civil rights legislation, while the Republican candidate advocated against civil rights legislation. The result was that the Democratic candidate received 94% of the black vote, including the support of John Lewis.

QUOTE:

On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy. — Martin Luther King

Thank you, you made my point. The migration of blacks from the Republican party started long before the civil rights era - ergo, the reason for the move had nothing to do with civil rights.

mudbug: Are you saying John Lewis joined the Democrat party for its racial views?!

Z: There's little doubt about that. In 1964, the Democratic presidential candidate advocated for civil rights legislation, while the Republican candidate advocated against civil rights legislation. The result was that the Democratic candidate received 94% of the black vote, including the support of John Lewis.

In the first place, you're over selling Johnson and under selling Goldwater. Johnson did the 64 Civil Rights Act purely for political purposes and not because of any strongly held belief in civil rights. Goldwater opposed it not because he was opposed to blacks having civil rights but because he was opposed to government's intrusion into private businesses. Admittedly, the optics were bad.

While majorities of both parties voted for the 64 CRA, The percentage of Democrats who voted for it is dwarfed by the the percentage of Republicans who voted for it. Many of the Democrat Senators who voted against it and even filibustered it remained prominent Democrats for decades without complaint from any other Democrat including John Lewis.

And that really is the subject of this thread. The Democrats are accepting of racists in their midst as shown by the lack of sanction for members and leadership supporting Farrakhan. Nothing has really changed except they are perhaps more clever about it.

mudbug: The migration of blacks from the Republican party started long before the civil rights era - ergo, the reason for the move had nothing to do with civil rights.

Huh? The migration began in the late 1940s, and was complete by the late 1960s. When did you think it occurred?

mudbug: Johnson did the 64 Civil Rights Act purely for political purposes and not because of any strongly held belief in civil rights.

Huh? It's immaterial, but Johnson clearly believed in civil rights. He knew it meant the end of the solid Democratic South, and the end of the Democratic Party's political hegemony. It was a necessary sacrifice.

mudbug: Goldwater opposed it not because he was opposed to blacks having civil rights but because he was opposed to government's intrusion into private businesses.

Again, it's immaterial. Blacks believed the Republican Party had turned their backs to civil rights, so blacks turned their backs on the Republican Party.

mudbug: And that really is the subject of this thread.

The subject was the fallacious claim "Why does the left not condemn Farrakhan’s anti-semitism?"

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: